An amendment application cannot be refused solely on the ground of delay or limitation if the amendment is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute and does not cause injustice to the other side.

1. THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No.29 dated 17th November, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senor Division, 1st court at Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.290 of 2008 whereby the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by holding inter alia that the relief which the plaintiffs are now seeking to introduce in the suit by way of amendment of plaint is not only time barred but also no satisfactory explanation is given for such long delay in applying for such amendment.

2. THE plaintiffs are aggrieved by the said order. Hence, they have come before this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 and the learned Advocate General appearing for the opposite party no.2. Considered the materials on record including the impugned order. Let me now give a short background of this case leading to the filing of this revisional application before this Court. THE plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit property with a further declaration that all transactions in favour of the defendant no.2 in respect of the suit property are void and not binding on the plaintiffs. A decree for recovery of possession of the suit property was also prayed for in the said suit with a direction upon the defendants for removal of all structures constructed thereon. An injunction was also sought for restraining the defendants, their men and agents from ousting the plaintiffs illegally and forcefully from their legally owned premises without due process of law and/or from carrying on any illegal construction on the suit plot forcefully and/or from changing the nature and character of the suit property. Admittedly Sanatan Mondal was the absolute owner of the suit property. In fact, both the parties are tracing their title through the said Sanatan Mondal. As such, this Court does not feel it necessity to give further details as to how Sanatan Mondal acquired absolute title in the suit property herein.

It was stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint that Sanatan Mondal who was in possession of the suit land prior to the date of vesting retained the suit land in khas and his other lands under occupation of the under-raiyat were vested to the Government meaning thereby that the rent receiving rights of Sanatan from his tenant in respect of vested land got abolished. It was further stated by them that while in actual physical possession of the suit land, the said Sanatan Mondal transferred the suit land measuring about 5.95 decimals appurtaining to Dag No.2874/3011 of Khatian No.315 in Mouza Ghuni, J.L. No.23, P.S. Rajarhat, Dist. 24-Parganas by registered deed dated 30th December, 1960 in favour of Bipin Behari Sana and Bijon Behari Bain and delivered peaceful possession of the same to the said purchasers. One of such purchasers namely Bijon Behari Bain, while in possession of the said land by exercising various activities therein, died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiff no.1, as his widow, the plaintiff nos.2, 3 and 4 as his sons and plaintiffs nos.5 and 6 as his daughters. In similar way, on the death of the other purchaser namely Bipin Behari Sana his eight anna share in the suit property devolved upon his only son the defendant no.7. It was further stated therein that taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest at the time of recording in the revisional settlement, the names of the plaintiffs and/or their predecessors-in-interest were not recorded as owners in the revisional record of rights. On the contrary, the name of some other persons was recorded as owners in respect of the suit property in the revisional record of rights though they have no se